Historical Fiction Online

Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

My only thought on this matter is that it should be solely based on number of posts.

But, if I can make one suggestions, I think that there is too big a gap from 100 to 500. You get to 100 very quickly, especially as new members join and catch up but then it can take a long time to get to the next level. Just a thought.

"Susan" wrote:But if I nominated someone and they were not voted to be promoted, they would never know, so it is not the same at all as standing in gym and watching as you are the last picked. It works well in the forum I help moderate. People know they can move up in rank based upon two methods.

The only problem I have with this is that since only a few people get to vote on who moves up in rank and it's so secret, it just seems too arbitrary for my liking. I'm sure it works well for your forum but personally I wouldn't like to see it here.

I think we have a pretty good group of people here who all post very helpful posts for the most part. I'm not worried about anyone clogging up the board with posts just to move up in rank. But that's just my two cents!

Books to the ceiling,Books to the sky,My pile of books is a mile high.How I love them! How I need them!I'll have a long beard by the time I read them. --Arnold Lobel

I don't remember anyone at the old forum posting a lot just to get their rank up, although I wasn't at the forum from the very beginning. It was far more common to have people (mostly authors promoting their novels) leave a post or two, then disappear.

Maybe in the very beginning people were posting just for ranking purposes, but I think it was because it was new and people wanted to see what all the different titles were. Does this place allow that after a certain amount you can change it to whatever you want? It used to over at the other place, but I reached that status long ago and then became a mod and didn't really pay attention anymore, so maybe I'm wrong...

I think if you do use the old system it would be nice to have a few more ranks for some variety...

Hey, since part of a forum is about having fun, why not allow for a whole range of titles -- like professions of yore, for instance -- and then just let people pick? The forum software gives the join date and an updated count of posts right under the name after all, for anyone to whom seniority matters.

Some suggestions: military ranks or positions, such as centurion, archer, janissary, samurai, crossbowman, harquebusier, artilleryman, midshipman, captain, commodore, general, etc; Female and male titles, lady-in-waiting, countess, viscount, marchioness, and so forth; merchant or craftsman designations like blacksmith, pedlar, beggar, storyteller, bard, Indian scout, butler, chambermaid, detectuve -- there would be room for a lot of amusement, especially if the handle, like the avatar, could be switched according to what you are feeling.

"Susan" wrote:Using the number of posts can also be problematic because people could post many posts just to move ahead in rank.

Not much to be gained by that kind of thing though. It's not like high post counts win prizes.

I'm not a fan of the system you described, although it does has some good points.
I just worry that some posters who may otherwise make positive contributions are put off because they feel they are being judged.

"Rowan" wrote:One thought I did have, though, is to make those who are published authors stand out by giving them a special title as some people might not connect their membernames with their full names.

I think this is a good idea.

In reality, ranks really don't matter much. This forum (and the old one) seems to have well behaved posters who rarely get into heated discussions that require moderator intervention. This is not always so on the royalty forum I moderate where people can have overly passionate opinions about some royals (you all probably know who!). We had to have specific ground rules established for discussions of a certain trio who have the initials C, C, and D, although this discussion has calmed down considerably and now is almost non-existent. I prefer my royals long dead, so I never got into the fray. So on the royalty forum giving exemplary posters a promotion in rank not based upon post numbers is a motivation and serves as an example to others. It still is something to be considered for here. In my years of being a moderator, I've seen many examples of posters who have wonderful quality of posts, but not quantity of posts. I have also seen posters who have quantity, but lack quality. And to be clear...on the royalty forum, any one of the administrator, the moderators and the grand dukes/duchesses can nominate a poster for promotion. All communication is done by email, including discussion and voting. We don't even post anything on the forum when we promote a poster. The administrator merely changes the rank.

One more thought...I've seen a couple of posts here from people who had quite a number of posts on the old forum and who miss their old post total. Using a system that promotes exemplary posters could push posters like them ahead to a higher rank.

I wont lie. I had a ton of em. I missed my custom title "Warrior Goddess" I'm not gonna get my knickers in a knot over it though. I'm just happy this place is back and we can contiune our discussions on all things HF oriented.

I agree with Sweetpotatoboy. The jump between 100 and 500 is rather large.

As for how ranks should be assigned, I'm rather partial to the number of posts. I've never seen anyone post simply to move up in the "ranks". That would take some serious dedication - and all for a name!